Workers' compensation lawyer resigns from judicial nominating panel

Labor group and colleagues alleged conflict of interest in role picking workers' comp judges

A Kansas City lawyer who does workers' compensation cases resigned from an administrative law nominating committee late Monday after a labor group and other lawyers alleged his new role picking judges who adjudicate workers' compensation presented a conflict of interest.

Anton Andersen, chairman of the Kansas Workers Compensation and Employment Security Board Nominating Committee, wrote a letter to Gov. Sam Brownback and the other committee members saying he is stepping down.

"I very much enjoyed serving in my short tenure on the Board and believe in the Board's important function of nominating qualifying persons to serve the State of Kansas," the letter states. "Unfortunately circumstances and business considerations have arisen that require that I resign my position as the KSIA (Kansas Self-Insurers Association) representative effective immediately."

The letter says Tina Cox, president of KSIA and vice president of risk management at the Kansas Restaurant and Hospitality Association, will take Andersen's place as the insurance group's representative on the seven-member panel.

"I had heard rumors that several claimants' attorneys were upset with my presence on the Board because I regularly represent employers in workers’ compensation matters," Andersen said in an emailed statement. "Rather than allowing unfounded accusations of a 'conflict' to take the focus away from the real function of the committee, i.e., nominating persons for current and pending vacancies, I submitted my resignation to Gov. Brownback."

The Legislature approved the new nominating committee this year over the protests of labor groups that said it is weighted in favor of business.

Administrative law judge nominees previously were chosen by a two-member panel — one representing business and the other representing labor. The committee formed through passage of Senate Bill 187 includes representatives from the Labor Department, the Kansas Chamber, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the Kansas AFL-CIO labor union, the Kansas State Council for Human Resource Management, the Kansas Self-Insurers Association and one person chosen by the labor secretary from an employees’ organization.

The committee picks nominees for 10 judges and five appeals adjudicators when the positions come open and votes on retention every four years.

The appointment of Andersen, who defends businesses against workers' compensation claims for Kansas City firm McAnany, Van Cleave & Phillips, drew a formal ethics complaint from a group of labor unions called the Working Kansans Alliance.

The same day the complaint was filed with the judicial branch's Office of the Disciplinary Administrator, a group of claimants’ attorneys who sometimes work opposite Andersen sent a letter to him giving him 10 days to resign before they filed a complaint.

Topeka lawyer George H. Pearson, who penned the letter, said he and his colleagues didn’t coordinate with the Working Kansans Alliance and preferred to give Andersen time to address their concerns before a formal complaint was filed. But Pearson said they agreed with the substance of the WKA's complaint.

"It’s about as pure a conflict there can be,” Pearson said in a phone interview.

Pearson said the key difference between the workers' compensation nominating committee and the panel that picks the Kansas Supreme Court justices is that the lawyers on the workers' compensation panel also influence the retention of the judges every four years.

"That’s a pretty big hammer to have over somebody,” Pearson said.

John Ostrowski, a claimants' attorney originally appointed to the committee by the AFL-CIO, resigned his position before its first meeting on July 1, saying he was "uncomfortable" with the arrangement.

Colin Curtis, a spokesman for the Working Kansas Alliance, said via email that Andersen's resignation leaves no reason to pursue the complaint against him.

But the complaint also named a second lawyer, Harvey Sorensen. Sorensen, who was Labor Secretary Lana Gordon's pick for the committee, said he couldn’t comment on it if it was before the disciplinary administrator.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for following agreed-upon rules of
civility. Posts and comments do not reflect the views of this site.
Posts and comments are automatically checked for inappropriate
language, but readers might find some comments offensive or
inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules, click the
"Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

The Working Kansas Alliance (WKA) today filed a complaint with the Judicial Disciplinary Administrator over the membership of two attorneys, whose firms practice in workers compensation, on a new committee for the appointment and retention of judges and appeal board members in workers compensation.

In a letter to Disciplinary Administrator Stanton Hazlett, Terry Forsyth, president of the Working Kansas Alliance, said it had come to the attention of many of the coalition’s members that two members of the committee, Anton C. Anderson and Harvey Sorensen, were associated with law firms that practice regularly in workers compensation. Anderson is with the firm McAnany, Van Cleave and Phillips and Sorensen is with the Foulston Siefkin firm. Forsyth also noted that Anderson is the chairperson of the new committee, and according to information on his firm’s website, practices exclusively in the area of workers compensation.

“The working families represented by WKA see multiple problems with Mr. Anderson and Mr. Sorensen selecting these judges, and then trying their cases in front of these judges,” Forsyth said.

“These judges come before the committee on a regular basis for retention of their jobs. It seems obviously offensive that an attorney, or members of the attorney’s firm, should be permitted to try a case in front of one these judges and then decide whether or not that judge should be retained in his or her employment.

“We have all heard of the ‘appearance of impropriety.’ It appears to us to be highly inappropriate that these gentlemen should be able to hire and fire the judges who decide their cases. We do not believe this ‘passes the smell test’, and accordingly, seek a resolution to this questionable conduct.”